[Tuidjy]

Originally posted by Norfleet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuidjy:
[qb]5. The total time of the tournament will be
reduced. I.e. a two person game on a small
map Lasts fewer turns than a ten players game
on a huge map.

We can't really guarantee this will actually be true: It takes a lot of time to organize games between people who otherwise have no contact.

---

Oh, that's why we call it a tournament :-)
The organizer starts the game, and those who do
not take their turns fall behind and lose.
I should not be on to talk, given how easily I
accumulate stale turns, but hey, fair's fair.

quote:

---

6. The total number of games played will be higher - MORE FUN FOR US!

I'm not sure repeatedly starting new games is what I'd call "fun". Not to mention that you're merely substituting the assumed shortness of one game for quantity of games.

---

Yes, I am aware that I am in a minority as to
liking short and agressive games. But there is
no assumed shortness. A game on 'Clash' is
decided by turn 30, usually. Not over, but
decided.

quote:

---

The only
way to play free-for-all and keep some
shade of fairness is to enforce the 'contact->war'
rule, but even then some people end up being
screwed through no fault of their own.

I don't really think this is an enforceable rule. Contact doesn't necessarily mean war, if nobody actually attacks the other. Eventually, the parties in question simply indicate a desire for peace through action alone. If nobody wants to fight, there's not going to be a fight, even if they're "at war" by that rule.

---

You are right, it is not easy to enforce. But
I have seen it enforced in some games. Anvils
were falling on the heads of the Barons who
were at peace when by the game's universe rules
they should have been at each other's throats.
But it was in a heavily GM'd game.